It's time to begin a debate about Orgovs.
They are severely overpowered. Either the damage they do needs to be reduced by, say, 50%, or they need to have their speed cut in half or some combination of reduced speed and damage. I just saw a guy use them to hit-and-run, raiding and killing enemy structures with almost complete impunity. (I'm not blaming him for doing what the game allows, I'm just pointing it out.) They should either do less damage than they do now, or, if they are going to be powerful anti-structure tanks, then they should move slowly. Their purpose should be jump in and gang bang a starbase in mass or to clean up after a winning battle. No other race has a unit that can single-handedly destroy structures all over the map (with just a couple units) while being able to easily run away from pursuers, avoiding them by jumping from well to well.
As they stand now, Orgovs are severely overpowered and have made TEC the top race by a wide margin.
I feel like orgovs pop. expecially to fighters and scouts, and to a good degree flack and lrms.
I demand replays before you go calling orgrovs severly overpowered.
That said... a speed reduction would not be to big of a thing to ask for. It will also help ogrovs from not coasting into starbase weapon range. could/should also be applied to advent anti-structure as well, which, as far as the role you are watching ogrovs playing... the advent anti-structure in theory would do even better.
They can certainly be killed, but they don't go down that easily. They'll do an inordinate amount of damage before you kill them. Maybe one solution is to just have their shield/hull reduced or to have the cost and/or fleet supply increase.
It's counterable with a good scout mob. Chase them down with 20-30 secouts (that's equivalent to roughly 3-6 Ogrovs command-wise) and they'll die pretty easily. Still, I fully see where you're coming from. This unit hits hard and can knock out economic infrastructure extraordinarily quickly, and if you get blindsided by it there's really not a lot of time to react to this fast-working unit. In that sense, the Ogrov is similar to the Vulkoras; if you're caught offguard the planet is gone, nothing you can really do about it.
To be honest, I see the current state of the Krosov (and by extension all siege frigates) versus the current state of the Ogrov as a bit of a contradiction. The Krosov was nerfed into the ground ages ago because it was too good of a harasser and now is utterly incompetent in any in-battle situation. On the other hand, we now have the Ogrov which is basically at the same strength level as the old Krosov, except versus structures.
Part of the problem is that players really don't bother to defend their flanks. They just lean on the fact that planets and structures have loads of hit points as a deterrent to smaller raids, and are willing to accept the loss if a larger forces ploughs through. Ogrovs allow a player to expend a medium-sized force that can very quickly desolate these flanks. So I'm not willing to jump to the conclusion just yet that they're uncounterable and overpowered when the victim left himself open to this sort of tactic.
Definitely a discussion that needs to be had, though.
The problem is that they seem to move quickly and can jump around from planet to planet even if you're chasing them. Vasari has a hard time making a scout mob since they have the weakest and most expensive scouts in terms of combat.
i actually did the math on that, and while the vasari scout is lacking in hp, its dps is actually between that of the tec and advent scouts.
(someone do please tell my why advent scouts have 2 base armor, vasari 1.5, and tec 1... thats just wrong backwards stupid.)
still demanding replays, btw.
Eh, your math is off:
TEC scout: 2.55 DPS (1.275 / command)Advent scout: 2.4 DPS (1.2 / command)Vasari scout: 3.4 DPS (1.13 / command)
So in terms of damage / command the hierarchy is TEC > Advent > Vasari, though they're all fairly close.
I can accept the Vasari numbers, since this is a bigger unit, but Advent at 2? It makes no sense. Combined with those massive shields and healthy hull points (only a tad below the Arcova) the Seeker ludicrously tough for its cost.
I've always held that the seeker was the only scout that needed a nerf, and the nerf needed was durability, not damage.
hmmm... I was looking at 20.5/8 = 2.5625 for tec, 17/7 = 2.42857 for advent, 18.5/5 = 3.7 for vasari... 3.7/3*2 = 2.466 for 2/3rds a vasari scout.
I'm fine with the advent scouts, due to the illums being almost worthless now.
I see no problem with the Orgovs. They are where they should be as far as strength and damage. I do think they could have a speed nerf only. That will give the defenders some time to punish them if they are ready.
But I think that a weak flank should be punished if the player has the foresight to build some Orgys and go hunting.
Some good hanger placements with solid fighters nullifies those Orgs, btw.
I'm fine with the strength and damage as long as their speed gets cut in half.
Illums kinda have a buff coming to them
Who'd have thought fixing a bug that caused them to deal inordinate amounts of damage might reveal that the unit itself was actually kinda weak.
I disagree on this one. One hanger gives you two squads, and costs about the same amount as one Ogrov. Two squads of fighters will take about 70 seconds to kill an Ogrov (presuming you micro for maximum damage output). In this time, it's likely the Ogrov will have killed the hanger. Given the hanger is a static defense that needs to be invested in ahead of time against an undetermined threat that may appear at a later time, that's not nearly effective enough to qualify as a counter in my books. Go with scouts, every time.
Of course, I'd argue this is more a case of hangers being on the underpowered side. At very least they need an antimatter buff. Shameful that without upgrades they cannot even fill their base strike craft quantity.
I am not of the opinion that ogrovs are overpowered. I do believe however that adjudicators/starfish are underpowered though. Ogrovs serve the function they are made for well. Starfish do not. I could do without starfish being able to target 5 structures and have fewer targets with more damage. It does piddly damage to a starbase and if you are going for lightly defended econ territory it is not every time that trade ports and such are grouped together to take maximum advantage of five targets.
[_]-Greyfox
I'd definitely agree with this one.
Their damage needs a buff, period. They cost 50% more than an Ogrov, but their damage (if you add all their banks together) is actually about 30% less than an Ogrov. This is simply way out of whack. To bring them into the same league as the Ogrov overall, they really need to have their damage doubled.s.
seriously sanchez your dumbass turtle everygame no matter what strategy has a severe weakness and you come crying on here when someone takes advantage of it.
maybe if you someday realize that starbases dont solve everything,,,,maybe the same day as kok realizes HCs arnt the be all end all
Derek, you completely missed the point. The Orgovs were jumping around from well to well QUICKLY seeking targets at wells where there weren't any fleets in the hopes that the couple LRFs that were sent to chase them wouldn't keep up right away. My point is that it shouldn't be that hard to chase them down if they're going to have that much destructive power.
I'd actually agree with this.
Ogrovs are real life's counterpart to "mobile artillery" and while they aren't as slow as tanks, they are very vulnerable to scouting units. Mobile artillery is often taken down in the field by armored recon--2-3 personnel carriers with a light guns and a platoon of infantry on board. Also very susceptible to airstrikes.
All this aside, lighter units should certainly be able to chase down and punish unescorted Ogrovs severely.
About the Starfish damage and even regarding siege frigates and the Ogrov--what would be more in sync with actual artillery/bombardment is to account for volume. The more units firing, the greater the effect.
I think there should be a buff on same-type "artillery" units that adds an incremental increase to damage for each unit firing. Adjust damage so that a single unit doesn't produce much but that massed ones do.
The Starfish could be a good place to try that.
To be fair, the LRF was never supposed to be a "search and destroy" unit against flighty mobile enemies. Its high firepower means it often can fulfill this role, but it's non-ideal due to its speed. Strike craft, scouts, light frigates, and heavy cruisers can all the close the distance quite effectively, so that's the comparison that needs to be made.
That would make the unit even worse. This is a specialist unit used in small numbers as an alternative to investing larger amounts of money in more general units. If you need 80 command of these things to make them worthwhile, then they're a joke; just go with bombers, they'll scale better and are more well-rounded anyways.
We need to move in the opposite direction, getting the Adjudicator useful even if you only have one of them.
Maybe an ability that allows them to decrease their cooldown. Say 20%, researched maybe? Then set it to a stack level of three so that one can be dangerous but three will wreck havoc but they aren't overpowered because the ability can have a large cooldown itself so someone needs to use it carefully.
I think something that would help would be the creation of home guard units--ships that can't jump but can patrol home systems cost effectively and with weapons optimized for stopping small raiding groups.
Basically an armed and armored up scout.
It's called a "hanger" specced with "fighters". It just sucks currently and needs a buff.
Yeah, it's the "sucks" problem that makes it bad at present. I actually think they should have a "heavy" bomber type for defense hangars and starbases and a "fighter-bomber' for escorts that can serve as dual role.
A defense bomber with a composite attack versus the very heavy attack done by the current bombers. Fighters are good overall. Hangars need to hold more strike craft (maybe 4 for TEC and Vasair and 5/6 for Advent?) and yes have a bigger Anti-Matter hold. Especially with more strike craft added.
Any buff would make it OP as the hangars for all three races can be researched fast and make HW planets extremely difficult to conquer as any assault would be costley.
Because every balance problem has to be solved by creating new unit types right.
buhh.
for tec
450/20/12 = 1.875 damage per supply.
Upgrades to 2.4375 with max research
for advent
60*5/4/18 = 4.1666 damage per supply. (.83333 per target)
upgrades to 6.229166 damage per supply. (1.2458333 per target)
Nevermind, the numbers I referenced were wrong
What's with me and pulling up bad numbers recently...
Hangers are quite expensive; if you invest heavily in these kinds of static defense, a direct attack should be costly. Currently, we have great defensive options on the cheap (repair platforms) and on the expensive (starbase), but nothing to bring up the middle. That's what hangers should be for.
Just buff the hanger, no need to completely revamp it.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
